Cowardice in battle
- Thread starter Vietcong
- Start date
"but shooting him isn't going to boost morale. I don't think you have gotten my point, before."
I guess not, because I wasn't advocating that they be shot. Just explaining why they would be dealt with so harshly. I'd advocate punishment sure, but to anyone who's read the Red Badge of Courage, killing them is not the answer.
I guess not, because I wasn't advocating that they be shot. Just explaining why they would be dealt with so harshly. I'd advocate punishment sure, but to anyone who's read the Red Badge of Courage, killing them is not the answer.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Hey,
You would have to be careful what soldiers you are shooting. Every Army of WWII had instances of summerary execution, it wasn't always a moral killer.
Private Soldiers - The average recruit is not a professional. He has been trained but is not proficient in his profession, especially in a large war scenario where recruits probobly don't get so much training time. It is not the job of these men to be courageous, it is the job of their superiors to inspire that trait in them. If the common soldier is running the problem is not at the lowest level.
Non-Coms - These are usually hardened veterans, but their capabilities will vary with age, experiance, and rank. These men are the backbone of any army, and thus their superiors (officers) should not have to worry about motivating them like a private soldier. Executing these men is not an option, as they are priceless and IT WILL KILL MORAL.
The top, Officers - This is where all responsibility is. They are the representative of the state in the gore of warfare. These men call the shots, and thus have the greatest influence in creating favorable/disasterous condistion. An officer who is a coward, or more importantly stupid, should be shot in the heat of battle BY A SUPERIOR in such situations. It is essential that these men be stalwart.
At work so will elaborate later, sorry
-Pat
You would have to be careful what soldiers you are shooting. Every Army of WWII had instances of summerary execution, it wasn't always a moral killer.
Private Soldiers - The average recruit is not a professional. He has been trained but is not proficient in his profession, especially in a large war scenario where recruits probobly don't get so much training time. It is not the job of these men to be courageous, it is the job of their superiors to inspire that trait in them. If the common soldier is running the problem is not at the lowest level.
Non-Coms - These are usually hardened veterans, but their capabilities will vary with age, experiance, and rank. These men are the backbone of any army, and thus their superiors (officers) should not have to worry about motivating them like a private soldier. Executing these men is not an option, as they are priceless and IT WILL KILL MORAL.
The top, Officers - This is where all responsibility is. They are the representative of the state in the gore of warfare. These men call the shots, and thus have the greatest influence in creating favorable/disasterous condistion. An officer who is a coward, or more importantly stupid, should be shot in the heat of battle BY A SUPERIOR in such situations. It is essential that these men be stalwart.
At work so will elaborate later, sorry
-Pat
GrandAdmiral
Deity
what if they just lost it? i mean even a good soldier can be pushed past his limit. so he lays in his fox hole and pees on himself. well then he's not fit for combat. now if he just refuses to fight because he just doesn't feel like it thats a different story. but i don't imagine it will do much for your loyalty and fighting spirit to see your comrade shot because he lost his nerve and could no longer fight.
Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
If i was in a army where they had people with machine guns behind me threating to kill me if i dont shoot. I would join the other side gladly, and kill them from the other side.
It didn't work all that well for the Soviets in WW2, either, Vietcong. But for them this was the "Great Patriotic War", so they had other motivation for fighting. I can guarantee you that having a choice between being shot for not going out and getting shot is not much of a motivator.
And when it comes to courage, that is an unknown for everyone until they find themselves in a given situation. Some people that you would expect to act heroically on the battlefield come out of it as base cowards, others that you would expect to cut and run at the first opportunity receive Medals of Honor for valor under fire.
I expect very few posters here have ever been in such a situation, but consider:
You are engaged in a heavy firefight. Your best buddy, the person you have shared your hopes and dreams with, your innermost thoughts, is fighting beside you. Suddenly, his weapon falls silent, and when you glance over, you realize his brains are splattered all over you. The enemy forces are closing in. Do you turn tail and run? Do you surrender? Do you make a fight to the death? Are you sure? Are you really sure? Nobody knows until they are actually there, no matter what they may tell themselves or their friends on an internet forum.
And when it comes to courage, that is an unknown for everyone until they find themselves in a given situation. Some people that you would expect to act heroically on the battlefield come out of it as base cowards, others that you would expect to cut and run at the first opportunity receive Medals of Honor for valor under fire.
I expect very few posters here have ever been in such a situation, but consider:
You are engaged in a heavy firefight. Your best buddy, the person you have shared your hopes and dreams with, your innermost thoughts, is fighting beside you. Suddenly, his weapon falls silent, and when you glance over, you realize his brains are splattered all over you. The enemy forces are closing in. Do you turn tail and run? Do you surrender? Do you make a fight to the death? Are you sure? Are you really sure? Nobody knows until they are actually there, no matter what they may tell themselves or their friends on an internet forum.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Yes, being communist automatically means you can no longer be evil also
And it only worked for the russians (when it did) because they had almost infinite numbers of men. Try doing that in a British army and see how far you get.
It's wrong, it's demoralising and it's wasteful.edit: Enlighten me Vietcong, have you ever served in a combat unit during a war? Do you know that's what you'd do?
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
The Russians in WWII had great morale? Are you joking?
Wasn't Russia known historical for a huge amount of desertions, people cutting off their index finger so they couldn't shoot, etc?
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Or they could surrender and have a chance to live. Believe it or not some armies take prisoners....
You're lying to yourself if you really believe this. Until you are actually there, there is no knowing what you would really do.
Geee....VC never acknowledged brave American, British, Polish, French (yes, some French did fight), etc. soldiers that fought fiercely.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
But they were all evil capitalist bastards who spend their whole time nuking villages and eating babies!
Seriously though, I guess on D-Day it wasn't brave of them to attack that beach at all. I mean, its not like there was a 90% fatality rate or anything like that...
Seriously though, I guess on D-Day it wasn't brave of them to attack that beach at all. I mean, its not like there was a 90% fatality rate or anything like that...
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Bah, if VC had got his way the Allies would have machine gunned those not leaping up on omaha beach and scaling the cliffs without support!
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
The only person that man is accountable to is himself. If the cause is worthy enough for him to fight for it, he will fight.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Originally posted by cgannon64
But they were all evil capitalist bastards who spend their whole time nuking villages and eating babies!
Seriously though, I guess on D-Day it wasn't brave of them to attack that beach at all. I mean, its not like there was a 90% fatality rate or anything like that...
And imagine the wimpy Canadians, while scaling the cliffs of Juno Beach under German fire, stopping to catch their breath after reaching the top, before charging an entrenched enemy.
I wonder how Viet Cong would do in war in terms of bravery
lol: I just realized the irony of my statement: I meant the poster VC)Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
Killing your own men is only cool in the movies like what a bond villian would do. In real life its stupid.
A) first off let me say that this either troll bait gone bad (or pehapos godd?- either way it means it stimulatred real discussion instead of flames) as it just happens that our resident arndent anti-western member is defending the same tacitics used by the most recent addtion to the club of armies who just got "owned" by Uncle Sam's boot
B)it depends on what the soldire os- if you signed up for the army then yes, cowerdess is out of the question- you signed a contract, a pact, an oath to defend you nation, and lay your life on the line for it- it is your duty to uphold your part of the bargin.
if they are conscripts/draftess/pressed into service- then more leniency should be applied- after all, they literally didnt really want to go to war in the first place- and as such shouldnt be on the front lines anyway
if the military is compusory, ala Nordic states, and Israle, and so on, then leniency should again be applied, but not asd muchg as it is with draftess- after they should have known that courage was expected of them in times of war by there nation, and people, who not only need them, but entrusted them with aiding to safe guard there nation.
and in ALL cases, killing should never be a punishment for a coward- let it known to all that they fled from battle, and the problem should take care of itself- though other penalties should also be instated- as the old Roman saying is true- a soldire should be more afraid of there commander then they are of the enemy- but that dosent m,ean killing your own troops, and national brethren!
B)it depends on what the soldire os- if you signed up for the army then yes, cowerdess is out of the question- you signed a contract, a pact, an oath to defend you nation, and lay your life on the line for it- it is your duty to uphold your part of the bargin.
if they are conscripts/draftess/pressed into service- then more leniency should be applied- after all, they literally didnt really want to go to war in the first place- and as such shouldnt be on the front lines anyway
if the military is compusory, ala Nordic states, and Israle, and so on, then leniency should again be applied, but not asd muchg as it is with draftess- after they should have known that courage was expected of them in times of war by there nation, and people, who not only need them, but entrusted them with aiding to safe guard there nation.
and in ALL cases, killing should never be a punishment for a coward- let it known to all that they fled from battle, and the problem should take care of itself- though other penalties should also be instated- as the old Roman saying is true- a soldire should be more afraid of there commander then they are of the enemy- but that dosent m,ean killing your own troops, and national brethren!
Similar threads
